Skip to main content

About your Search

20121108
20121116
Search Results 0 to 15 of about 16
to throw some sort of bob. people like john kerry are completely incapable of helping the pentagon deal with this problem, even that problem. led of the on the problem that is going to occur. the other candidates for leadership of the pentagon to be it through this era, a very smart -- no background in any of these issues. the other candidates is ashton carter. he is perceived as a good manager. if you look at his job on the f 35 i simply cannot agree. he is not picking on the fundamental efforts of problem represents. he let it float to the future and it is going to face a phase in this, even in the sequestered scenario, it will do nothing but increase the cost on airplane which is a disappointment in terms of performance and that is a result of his management. i don't see him as a competent candidate to lead the pentagon through this future, thank you very much. >> thank you, winslow wheeler. our final speakerheather hurl r hurlbert is, prolific author, former speech writer and has been very active in national defense issues. >> thank you. i want to apologize for being late. talking
house in order. or begin that process. it's argued by the pentagon leaders that the military sequester would be crippling and would endanger national security. and, of course, the aerospace industries argue that there will be tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of jobs lost if the sequester were enforced. there's another way to look at the military sequester, which is what our panel is organized to do. and especially if you conclude, as do some of us, as do i, that the defense department is excessively large, riddled with inefficiency and subject to the corrupting influence of the defense industry. president obama believes that it is time to end our wars and to do nation building at home. the sequester, feared by many, could be, however, a way of opening the door to nation building. of ourselves. by shifting resources from defense to domestic needs. as we saw in the disasters of katrina and sandy, our infrastructure needs alone are enormous. whether as a result of horrendous storms or not. to cite just a few, the cost of repairing and replacing our water system -- dams, lev
taxes and entitlements and non-defense discretionary are such that pentagon describes this -- the president does. he will instruct the secretary of defense as to what the deal is and the secretary of defense will -- they want to resign, more power to them. but they will come and present a budget after the budget deal is done where they basically do what they are told. >> yes. >> i have a question. first, president obama says we can have a national ability and the chairman, you mentioned it too. how could you saves money you don't have? where is the money coming from? the second is there was mention -- defense spending. anybody know how much in terms of defense spending and should we talk about that to deal with it? the third question -- the world is changing. i think we have a new defense strategy. once you have a strategy you will know what kind of leadership you can have and what kind of armed forces you have and also defense technology. should we have discussion about this defense strategy? >> a couple thoughts. you say how do we invest domestic affairs, money we do
is for blood pressure checks but i'm about ready to set one here at the pentagon. it was not a relationship after he nominated me to the president to be ob the chairman. but over the course of time because we both worked at it very hard you can develop that trusting relationship. and so i think empathy for what his position was as a political appoint tee a senior civilian in the department of defense and all the responsibility he has and like wise having to respect what my responsibilities are and why they're different from his. so v.m.i.. how do we pick this person? >> you just took mine integrity. very intact sir. >> say more about that. >> as a leader the people who you work for and work for as well if you lose your baring their going to draw off of that. and the same thing you constantly work with people and have you to have tact and know when to give them a swift kick in the but or a hug. >> you've learned a lot already because some need a kick and some need a hug. that's excellent. bearing in tact, i havent thought about it in those terms. but a leader has to be disciplined because yo
. >> michael hastings actually torpedoed and the pentagon makes the parents of old america look like the french village of bohemians. it was indiscretion and fraternization somebody is not supposed to be buddy buddy with an inferior, and he was. but you have not touched upon us it is the problem of corruption and governance of all levels of the middle east. that involves the killers, the fanatic killers, the religious killers, the revenge killers. and how you deal with that. all it takes is one jerk to create havoc and community, and then the third thing in the middle east, at least in afghanistan and how you deal effectively with that. all of those things play a role. the fitness report determines who gets promoted. and that has sometimes less to do with ability and who likes you. >> is that one questionnaire? >> putting substance the makings of david petraeus. >> those are all very good questions and thoughts to pontificate. i will talk a little bit about the rule of law. helping to galvanize in afghanistan and if you read the book, we kind of traced him of his efforts to show how very diffic
, learning more about questions about him, and the pentagon investigation, alleged behavior. does the president have faith that general can continue to lead the war in afghanistan during this critical period of time while under investigation? >> i can tell you that the president thinks very highly of general allen and his service to the country as well as the job he's done in afghanistan. at the request of the secretary of defense, the president put on hold general allen's nomination as supreme allied commander of europe pending the investigation of general allen's conduct by the department of defense ig. the president remains focused on fully supporting our troops and partners in afghanistan that general allen led so ably for over a year. the president nominated general dunford to be the next commander of isaf reiterating comments that they should act swiftly to confirm him. >> accurate to say the president has full faith in general allen? >> he has faith in general allen, believes he's doing and has done an excellent job at isaf, and i refer you to the pentagon for the process u
, actually, to a private sector led economy, reintegrate ourselves with pentagon into central asia, we don't see much progress in this front, and on the issue of transition to the security responsibility to the afghans, really, to take speedometer of the fight up on themselves because there is no shortage of courage or skill in afghan. the afghan should be fighting the fight themselves. u.s. should get out of the combat role in afghanistan. that's good for afghanistan and the u.s., and also, it makes limited use presence in afghanistan sustainable if no u.s. soldier dying in afghanistan. therefore, in this front also, there's not many progress or cooperation by friends in pakistan. we very much would like, actually, the afghan people, particularly the government, see improvement on that. just to end on very short comments on what some of the distinguished panelists have mentioned, i totally expect that the issue of not having any evidence on bin laden be in islamabad. hard to imagine someone hiding in west point in the united states and in a businessman, friewntly speak the language, that
a said on a number of occasions, the pentagon, the intelligence community believe that this legislation is vitally to the safety and security of our country. so before thanksgiving, we're going to finish the sports men's bill, we're going to have -- the republicans need to kill the cybersecurity bill. they've been following the lead of the chamber of commerce, which is an arm of the republican party anymore. it is just a front for the republican party. they spend huge amounts of money that they get from unknown sources to defeat democrats. they wasted their money this time, but that's the way it is. they are opposing this bill for not any logical reason. then we -- senator levin and mccain have asked to go to defense authorization. i think if this bill is as important as they say it is -- and they say it is important; i know how senator levin and senator mccain feel about it -- looks like they would clear away some of this stuff that's getting in the way. but that's where we are. i think it is religionly a bridge too far to complete the defense authorization bill before we leave but we
are actually sharing priorities? >> na experience back here in town with ngos coming to the pentagon or the defense department on their side either asking for help or asking for distance or what experience do you have there? >> i have, the red cross comes to mind but i think the issue with ngos from my point of view is very few actually come in other than to say how can we help and who do we go to? that was very prevalent during katrina. a lot of people wanted to just go and they knew enough to know that just showing up wouldn't work. so they were trying to not bother the operations and they were coming to the pentagon to say how can we help in what and what can we do? i think that scenario replays itself at various levels all over the world, and so again, i am torn by the need to keep the government out of a local cooperative effort so that the benefits of capitalism can come up with a solution that is efficient, low-cost and philanthropic way supported. you have people confuse with a very limited amount of technology and infrastructure requirements like the use of cell phones and h
president roosevelt wrote a letter to a fellow head of the r&d for the pentagon and said we have a wonderful heroic world saving effort to mobilize technology, radar, proximity, and all number of invention synthetic rubber and atomic bomb we need to bring that same miracle of progress as an organized on -- concerted effort to the civil began front including medical care and that document that became -- agenda document for the whole post war effort. completely bipartisan, truman, eisenhower and the kennedy space mission to put the curve bending from science front and center in the national policy. it's been unfortunate the scientific emphasis has fallen off the national agenda over the last few years. i think we paid a price for it not only in terms of our own health but also in terms of the future cost of the medical programs and health care programs. now i'm optimistic that o'you can find a way to get it back on the agenda, in this second term. for example, to president obama science adviser if you look at the on document that doesn't seem to get any attention. if it got published from the
significant emphasis. for example, in 2010, the pentagon set up this u.s. cybercommand and the eu has a similar organization. the uk has the same thing. they have a cybersecurity operations center and this is the british equivalent in this area. let's just go through some of the terminology. i wanted to make sure that we have some particular knowledge about things. as i go through these special events, the backdoor is an overlooked entry into a network. it allows a hacker or someone were someone who was not authorized to be in there to get in with a password -- without a password. this is where you have a program that becomes a robot of the person on the outside. cookies are a friend when we are trying to order something. i'm going to give you some examples as we go. now where is malicious software. malware can be a virus 40 warm. we also have the concept where did these e-mails that are alluring you to respond. you might even respond to such a little ad. spearfishing is trying to get you to respond and it is that is the concept that it is targeted at you. because you have access to s
that was -- that was and is most important that sends the money to the pentagon was just killed, and that's cybersecurity. mr. president, i have had a number of people come to me during the day and said are you going to allow relevant amendments on this? i said sure. they said how about five? i said fine. but, mr. president, whatever we do on this bill, it's not enough for the chamber of commerce, not enough. so everyone should understand cybersecurity is dead for this congress. what an unfortunate thing, but that's the way it is. the sportsman's bill, mr. president, i filed cloture on this bill yesterday. unless we can agree to a limited number of amendments, we'll have cloture vote on the bill early tomorrow morning, probably around 9:00. if we get cloture, there will be a potential 30 hours for debate. under the rules as we all know too well. i have been told that some on the other side also plans to make a budget act point of order against the sportsman's bill. we have members representing the states of new york and new jersey who are going to be in their states tomorrow because of the tremendous damage
general woodard who is assigned to air force safety here at the pentagon. .. they visited basic military training at san antonio lackwit, for technical training bases. the officer training school at maxwell air force base in alabama. and the u.s. army's basic combat training at fort jackson in south carolina. additionally, the team conferred figures responsible for u.s. navy and marine corps basic training. the one to express my deepest appreciation to general woodward and a team for a job extremely well done. the 22 findings and 46 recommendations of the report accurately reflect the deficiencies in her basic military training program to provide effect their proposals. i intend to implement 45 of the 46 recommendations. we distributed copies of the directives investigation as the lesser part i prepared for the secretary of the air force with my review of the corrective measures i'm putting in place. i do not intend to cover is a report in this afternoon as our time is limited and i want to be as responsive as possible to your questions. that said there are a few points i want to make yo
to a close, president roosevelt wrote a letter to a fella named van bush who was head of r&d for the pentagon and said, listen, we've had this wonderful, heroic, world-saving effort to mobilize technology and radar, and, you know, proximity views, you know, all number of inventions, synthetic rubber and, of course, the atomic bomb, and we need now to bring that same miracle of progress and sort of organized, concerted effort to the civilian front including medical care. and that document, again, it became sort of the founding agenda document for the whole postwar effort by completely bipartisan -- truman, eisenhower including the kennedy/johnson space mission -- to put the curve ending from science front be and center into national policy. and i think it's been unfortunate that that scientific emphasis has spun off of the national agenda over the last few years, and i think we've all paid a price for it not only in terms of our own health, but the future costs for medical programs. and now i'm optimistic we can find a way to get it back on the agenda in this second term. i would point to, for
-tightening mode, it's important to keep in mind it's not just the pentagon that has not done things very cost effectively. i'm a big fan of the recent health care reform, but it was, you know, one of its strong points was not cost containment. and in addition, the cost containment measures that were there were not viewed as credible. and so that was a political decision, and partly it was a function of how it was done. and, you know, again i'm being cynical. i say the republicans, it's not so much that -- you know, republicans are not a monolith although they're closer than democrats, but some republicans genuinely don't want to increase taxes on the middle class and don't want a double dip recession. but the way that the party, the revealed preferences of the party in recent years has been they're much more concerned about the wealthy, you know, tan they are about these things -- than they are about these things. the democrats, so we are told now, i mean, it's a bargaining position. you know, the president has gone all out saying one thing they really want out of this is tax increases, you k
the pentagon and all the men and women in uniform who serve us so well as to the policies of the united states. i know i'll work with my colleague from alabama to see that accomplished. mr. president, i come back to the senate floor today as i have on many occasions to urge all of us to take action on a spool that's -- policy that's bipartisan, in its support and ramification. that is the production tax credit for wind energy. we need to renew that production tax credit. it's encouraged billions of dollars in investment and helped create tens of thousands of good-paying moobs across our country -- american jobs across our country. but i have to tell your our inaction here is jeopardizing the future of what's really a promising industry. we've literally over the last months seen wind industry jobs in the thousands disappear. that's not a statistic, not just a statement, those jobs affected real americans. and these job losses were completely preventible. and it's time for us to get back to work and extend the production tax credit so that our wind energy industry can also get back to work. and
Search Results 0 to 15 of about 16